tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg March 18, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EDT
♪ from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> we turn to the ongoing battle between apple and the fbi, fight over access to the phone of the san bernadino shooter. it continues and the two sides will meet in federal court next week. time magazine managing editor nancy gibbs and writer lev grossman sat down with tim cook. nancy gibbs is with us and i'm pleased to have her here. this is the cover of the time magazine. talking about his fight with the fbi and why he won't back down.
let me start with the obvious, what is your assessment of him and his commitment to this? >> that's what i was most curious about and why i wanted to hear from him. on the face of it, why would the countries richest, most valuable tech company pick a fight with the fbi over a terrorist cell phone? it seems strictly insane. from a pr point of view. apple has a huge commercial steak with privacy and secretly which are its product but talking to him, it was clear this is something he feels passionately about and the stakes of this debate around encryption are so high that having a single judge and a single court or a single case, even an important and emotional case like this, does not make sense. this is something that has to be debated by the american public, by the congress, should be handled with congress passing laws that determine when law enforcement should be able to break into these incredibly
powerful databases we now all have built about ourselves and carry with us. >> so he's not satisfied unless a ghost to the supreme court and there is a decision that the supreme court will have on this one individual case. he wants to see a broader decision made in congress? >> he says it's not just about this case. someone like the manhattan da has 175 phones he would like access to. law enforcement officials all over the country have similar cases where would help them build their cases if they could break into iphones. it's not as though this is the only time. >> that says there is no possible procedure that can be used to make this a case-by-case our ownecause, in dealings in national security, processes and courts and judges that make decisions about things like this. >> that's right, he would say -- i am not apples defense attorney but i wanted to hear him, how he
answered. this phone has a key that would unlock it and if he just turns that over to the fbi, the fbi can on lock the phone and get the information and then you are one and done. that he does not exist. they would need to build a new operating system and install it on this phone in order to let getfbi use brute force to into the phone by testing the 10,000 different possible passcodes. once you build that operating system, not only will other it, itwant access to will get out into the wild. cannot know the back door that only the good guys use. -everyone's safety and privacy becomes threatened once that operating system exists, he does
not think it is possible to out engineers and investigators into a sealed room and opened the own and then destroy the code and make it go away and no one else can then use it. >> what does he say about oppositiont he is in to the fbi? >> it's not a comfortable position. >> especially but national security and terrorism. ofhe recognizes the optics this are terrible and he's uncomfortable with it. he has likened this to past civil rights fights where he feels the government in this case is overreaching and someone has to say stop, slow down, let's talk about what is really at stake. let me say that apple has a lot at stake as to whether technology companies and everyone from microsoft to facebook and amazon, they have filed amicus briefs in support of apple. someone like michael hayden was
not soft on terrorism who of theands -- the head nsa and cia and understands the threat of cyber attack well, also has ended up coming down on the side of apple. that encryption is something that is valuable and important for our national security. >> no exceptions from michael hayden? >> the exception of building a backdoor to break through this encryption, he is on the side of apple which i think is interesting. people have switched sides on this. country is divided. it's not a black and white case. it's a series of trade-offs. >> here's what he said to you -- he said the way we get somewhere can be very ugly but we ultimately arrive at the right thing. >> he things the right way to arrive there is to have this debate collectively, publicly, have congress address it. can't there be any limits?
deciding incourt one domestic terrorism case that it's ok to unlock the phone, another court might decide it is ok in a robbery case or a divorce case or a tax fraud case. don't we want congress to be the the ones who say these are the circumstances under which we break into ak to phone? these are the circumstances which it is not. >> i know tim cook and respect him but he calls up the idea that this has anything to do with apple's business. >> yes, >> and apples marketing. >> it may be a false choice about principle or is this about profits? it may well be about both. his point is that apple did not invent encryption and apple does not own encryption. >> but it's getting more and more encrypted. ios, it's thest
default setting. and to endy, encryption is the norm and his point is if apple no longer was able to encrypt your data, the bad guys will still easily go outside the u.s. it's easy for them to still be able to encrypt their communications. it would just make the rest of us more vulnerable. the average american does not want to have to be a computer scientist to keep their data say. >> there is also controversy about what'sapp where there are issues about how terrorists are using them to protect their on medication. let me turn to another question. grossman says.v it comes out that resetting the password, they could have gotten the phone to make a fresh backup of itself automatically but once you change the password, it won't back itself up without the passcode. >> because the phone actually was not owned by the terrorist,
it was owned by san bernardino county. they thought they could get the information off of it just by resetting the password and getting into his eye cloud account. they did that and they found that the phone had not actually been backed up for the last few weeks. doing that, they had gone to his house and plugged it in, it would have automatically backed up, then they would have had all the information on the phone. the one door that was available to them and apple had helped them open, it turned out they made that door less useful. >> who is winning the battle of public opinion? >> that is a moving target. you have seen some people like lindsay graham who initially came out against apple who, upon further conversation, has now been more inclined to see the other side. >> are they winning? >> i don't know that they are winning but to the extent this becomes a more complex debate than just the soundbite, they
are protecting the terrorists against the fbi, to that extent, apple is winning if they are able to say there is much more at stake than a false dichotomy see of privacy versus security. >> you say sooner or later these questions will need to be put before the american people which is a reason the fbi has made this fight so ferocious and public. it's a question of where national security meets privacy. >> there is an enormous amount of information that we all have made available about ourselves quite apart from what is encrypted. >> that we don't want other people to know. >> in a way, this is the golden age of surveillance people have said. we have bugged ourselves. we make our health data and what we eat and where we are at any given time and we have all of that available and much of it is available publicly. what law enforcement can find out about anyone they are interested in is vastly greater than it has ever been in history. part of the question is, to what
extent does the fbi and other law enforcement need to do what our national security infrastructure has been doing, upgrading their capabilities as a posed to -- is this a shortcut? are they trying to take a shortcut to get this information? a realsed to becoming 21st century law enforcement organization.that's what one round of technology critics have said is that this is not the way you want to do it. >> do you accept the idea that apple makes the argument that there is no such thing -- that this is a one phone case? it cannot be that? >> why would this one case be different than another murder case or another criminal case that involves a drug dealer which is what apple was involved in. law enforcement set in order to build our case, we need access. who should be deciding which
cases warrant this kind of intrusion and which cases don't? people come to this table from the silicon valley and people who are smart about understanding where we are in and allgy and computers of that. many of them will argue or some of them will argue that the government can go to banks and get access to their bank statements. and that this is very private but there is a process to do that. why can't there be a process to do this question mark >> there was even legal precedent, somebody who had a bullet embedded in his shoulder that investigators needed to make their case and could they force a doctor, against the patient's wishes, to remove the bullet question mark ultimately, if that work its way through the courts, the patient one.
the fact that that took multiple appeals shows you that the reach of law enforcement -- as apple points out, this is under the , the ability of law enforcement to have fairly unlimited access to the places they need to go to make their case is well-established legal precedent. if we think because of the technological universe we are now living in and because of these incredibly powerful databases we have created about ourselves, i will bet you your phone has more information about you than your house does. >> i'm sure it does. >> now that we have which didn't exist 10 years ago but we are living on -- in the new world we created and the law needs to catch up with that. they're feeling is this is something that needs to be decided in congress. apple says we will abide by the law, obviously. but doing this on a case-by-case
races puts databases puts everyone at risk. >> everyone knew this was coming because people at talked to like ash carter, secretary of defense, he is concerned on a couple of levels about how they deal with silicon valley wherever the source is of remarkable technological innovation and they worry about the relationship with silicon valley and worry about how they form some kind of cooperative relationship that can deal with a range of issues. >> you put your finger and one of the most interesting questions which is that a lot of the silicon valley companies that are involved in this case are this century's media companies. in the 20th century, the media had huge commercial interests and they had a public trust in a public responsibility and they would have to weigh when you not publish something because of national security or when do you
go to court to publish the pentagon papers? those obligations and that territory were well explored. now we are in the new world world new set of players now has the kind of power those 20th-century players had. what are their obligations, whether public responsibilities whether it's to the government >> and living in a world of connectedness >> these are global companies. they may be born and based in america but they are global companies. apple sells 25% of its iphones in china. thateasy for them to say if the united states government can tell is to open this backdoor, so can the iranian or chinese government. the fact is, they are looking at this across the entire globe. >> tim cook comes out of alabama. he was one of the first top ceos to announce he was gay. tim cook is a guy who has
pictures of martin luther king and robert kennedy in his office. he is a guy that has enormous beenct for people who have going the distance for their beliefs. mode that exactly the he appears to be operating in in this case. you could say it would be in the interest of apple ii have been handled more quietly or you could argue as the justice department has that no, apple one of his public fight because it's good for their branding. even that is an interesting question. certainly washim that this is something where he thinks the stakes of this debate are exceptionally high and they go much higher than simply the stakes of finding out what might be on this one phone. >> thank you, great to have you. story, apple cover
dominated college basketball during the 1980's and 1990's, and jimth, dukes coach valvano. it's called the legend club. hall of fame coach jim calhoun calls his book a must read for all lovers of college basketball and the personalities who have made this game great. welcome back. >> thank you. >> this is a story you said you're not born to write but you lived it. i live in the middle where all this took place. >> as you know, i went to college at duke and met dean smith first of the three as a terrified duke junior. i try to interview him about kate armstrong who was on his olympic team. i was 19 and scared to death by dean could not have been nicer. he had actually read something i had written in the student newspaper at duke because back then, they clipped every single paper in the country.
i had written something sang bill foster who was the duke coach had modeled his program after dean. he said you were fair to us in that piece especially someone from duke and that became a running theme for 35 years. the acc for the washington post in the 1980's when dean was the icon, valvano was the rockstar and krzyweski was the little engine trying to get started in the early 80's. they were born nine days apart. book, a greatis player at duke in the 1960's was associate athletic director and yet seen krzyweski coach and brought his name to tom butters. who?nswer was literally, young coach atre army but he became enamored after interviewing him and decided to hire him even though he had been 9-17 at army. the headline the next day at duke was this is not a typo.
krzyweski. jim valvano wrote to tom butters, the coach at iona in new york, and had been very and wrote to9-5 butters about the duke job. through theent coaching search and he was so impressed with the letter, he showed it to butters who sent it to willis casey, the athletic rector at n.c. state. nine days later, valvano is the state -- is the head coach. >> do you regret not writing the biography? >> i wanted to for many years but when i finally convinced them to do it in 2009, he was already in the middle stages of dementia. we had two long sessions together. there were moments when he was still dean and i asked him how he met his first wife and he remembered it minute by minute and i asked him about bob spear's first loss air force academy and he had no idea who he was.
for the end of each session, i could see him getting very tired. i talked to his wife and to his son and we agreed that we cannot go forward. it was not in good enough shape to do it. i did get some things out of those interviews i was able to use in this book and dean's wife and pam valvano, james white, works for nearly helpful because i could not talk to dean or jim. >> what was the impact of these three guys in the 1980's? >> dean smith was an icon by the time just dusky desk by the time -- by the timeno shish sdn valvano came along. mike tells a great story about recording a great story about recording it getting california named mike akers and realizing it was not going well. he finally turned to his mom who had not said anything and said mrs. akers, is there anything at all you want to know about our academics at duke? she said, no, i don't need to ask questions because the only thing is important that mike go to
somewhere where he's close to god. he went to oral roberts. that's what they were dealing with when they first got down there. dean won the national title in 1982 and then valvano won the title in 1983. >> they were not supposed to win. >> they barely got in the tournament. if they had not won the acc tournament, they went to the nit and jim might've gotten fired. that's the way he was thinking. when they won back-to-back national titles, krzyweski was .itting there i was with krzyweski that night in the denny's at 2:00 in the morning when the duke sid raises glass and here's to forgetting tonight and krzyweski raises glass and said here's to never blanking forgetting tonight.
he beat virginia the next 60 times they played in a 1991 when they finally won the national championship and i walked on the court, congratulated mike come of the first thing he said was, we have come a long way from the blanking denny's so he never did forget. that's what he was up against. >> this is coach k on this program in 2010 talking about the common thread among the great college coaches. >> i don't think any of those talk.ver coach, over i think a competitive mind is like a glass. it can only -- you can only fill it so much. if u.s. a coach try to fill it with all that you know, you take away from it the players instincts. you've got to fill it up to a certain point and then allow the player to fill it on his own. i think there is that combination. i think those coaches, whether they frame it that way or whatever, evoke that. >> how do they coach differently
question ? >> what he said was fascinated because they were playing a game against carolina and he had talked in practice about not letting carolina cross a line. you don't let him them across that line on wednesday night. his pregame speech that night was he walked into the locker room, walked up to the white board and drew a line. he said let's go. that was it. that was his pregame speech. made mike for so many years is is flexibility. he changes constantly. he learns from failure which goes back to his days at west point. two years ago, when they lost to mercer in the first round of the ncaa tournament, he did not wine and say his players were tolerable on defense. he said how do i get better and he started doing little things. he got on twitter so he could follow his players so he would know what they were thinking. he learned how to text so he could tax the players on a regular basis. he decided to coach the one and
done freshmen like they were seniors because they were seniors. they were never going to be sophomores. you cannot be patient until they learn man-to-man defense. he had the place to his own. that was the only way for them to win last year and that's why they won last year because he had that flexibility. dean was very system oriented. this is the way we do things, the passing game on offense, changing defenses on the other end of the court, always playing deep into the bench. nobody pushed the ball better than dean smith. >> as recruiters -- krzyweski and dean are similar because they were selling the same thing. they were selling great liberal arts education and the tradition of their two schools because duke had a tradition before shift he got there. dean built the tradition although frank acquire won the national title in 1957 but they sold the tradition and the beauty of their campuses and what is like to be at a game.
valvano sold both anna. terry gannon tells a story about valvano coming to his home on a home visit. he didn't bring anything but himself and walked in the door and shouted at his father who was a high school coach about how terrible is directions were and then sat down with his and started helping him pick games. the deadline to bet on basketball. he went off and started picking games with his dad. by the time he walked at the door, terry and never seen n.c. state and dad said you will go play for him. that's the way valve and a sold it. >> this is dean smith in 1999 talking about what he loved about reading a basketball coach. >> i really did enjoy it teaching at the practice is more than anything. i enjoyed a tough ballgame where it was going to be a contest. i hated the games where the players, the fans, everyone thought we should win by 20. i knew the other team was dangerous. the joy also was the relationships that you have with the guys.
college, you in change each year. >> dean smith, it reminds me of the story about george wallace, the governor of alabama was so the only reason i am governors because bear bryant does not want to be. >> centrist and you should say that. in 1984, i was with dean smith on election day and he and i would always talk allah text because our politics were similar, very liberal. >> unlike mike. >> mikey's to say you too liberal you know what. where are the programs today? >> dean smith and carolina, ranked for question mark >> ranked third and they are a number one seed in the term it. duke won a national championship last year. they had a down year. was tyus jones did not turn pro because they had a good tournament. emile jefferson, their one good inside player got hurt and has
been out since the ninth game of the system and they are not deep enough. they only have six players deepened they are still pretty good that they cannot defend the weight mike krzyzewski can defend. >> will they make it to the top 16? >> may be, they will play baylor and that will be tough. they can certainly do it. carolina could win the national championship. they better because two of their best players, bryce johnson and marcus paige are seniors and this investigation is finally winding up we don't know what will happen in april or may when the ncaa finally comes down with their results in this investigation, it's the academic scandal. it's terrible especially for program like carolina. anybody who really loves college basketball, cannot be happy to see this happening. what's interesting about n.c. state is they have had some good teams since jim left in 1990. that sheno said believes that all four coaches followed jim have all coach in his shadow.
every year, we see the espy speech that jim gave in every year we see him running around the court in albuquerque and he still young. it's very hard to get out of that shadow because he was such a unique personality. he became the room. he was so smart. jim and dean were good friends. when jim was invited in 1993 before he died to throw out a first pitch at yankee stadium, he had always wanted to do that, he was too sick to travel. if you can'tsaid make it since someone in your place. and so, he had called dean smith and asked him to go. dean was a yankee fan. dean hated to be in public.
you heard him talk, i love coaching, i love the practice. beamed tod have been the core and never done anything else he would have been happy. he went and throughout the first pitch. in their home were all sorts of pictures with dean with kids and coaches. there is only one picture of him alone, throwing out that first pitch. charlie: it is an amazing story. back to where we are this year. march on the eve of the madness. what does it look like? john: as wide as it has been in years. can anybody be kentucky? the answer turned out to be yes. duke beat wisconsin. but this year if you said that one team, i would say give me 10 choices. i might not pick the national champion. michigan state is always a threat. carolina has the most talent.
i love the way virginia plays. kansas is playing as well as anybody in the country is. i haven't touched on the team who is going to win. ingram is very good. simmons will be the number one pick. ingram will been the number two. he is that good. he is a teenager. he is a college freshman. he can shoot the three and put it on the floor. he will be a good nba player. unfortunately he will be an nba player next year. that is what fascinating. he hates the one and done. is about, he relationships with the players. that is what he loves. helping them grow. when he was first recruiting he would fly home with a recruit
after a visit so he could spend time alone with a recruit. he was always about those relationships. one and done, you can't do that. charlie: one last clip. iswhat i hope i give my team , they have a confidence level that i am the guy coordinating all this. they can use skills and i will be there to help them use their skills as well as they possibly can. i won't rob them of their instincts. over the course of the year they just trust us. players trust us. charlie: there is a great story about what he just said. grant hill tells the story about coming off the court after kentucky took a lead and he is
thinking i guess we are going on spring break. the first thing he says is we're going to win the game. by the time they walked out they were convinced they were going to win and they did. that is what he is talking about . i am the facilitator. the best coaches, if the coach says to you you can win this game walking on your hands, you believe you can win these games. charlie: the book is called the legends club. i spent some time with jordan speed. tell me your impression of him? is 22 years old going on 40 when you talk to him. i laughed when i hear people say he doesn't do anything great. he does the two things that are most important better than anybody. he is the best putter in the world.
he has the best mind. tiger woods had the best mind. people overlook that. as far assn't pu hit it tiger. the old tiger. not the current tiger who is not even playing. charlie: he said nobody is even remotely as good as he was. john: i agree because i think at his dominant best from 1997 to , he, when he won 14 majors won majors by 15, by 12, by eight. nicklas didn't do that. he dominated the game in a way no one had. i get scared when i people say rory mcillroy is the next tiger. jason days and. tiger.is not the next that is pretty darned good. charlie: what are they say about tiger now in terms of his
physical side? john: they say who knows. i don't think tiger woods knows if he is going to play. everyone is waiting to see if he shows up again. nobody is counting on it. that is a positive thing. good thing for golf is for years there was concern what happens when tiger goes away. is golf going to collapse completely? you have these three great players who are not only very good players, they are good guys. so, here is what is , heresting about jordan's was 54 under for the four majors. he said he doesn't think anyone will do that again. 10 under toxpect
win the masters. john: he shot 17 under and didn't win. i think it is the third greatest year in the history of golf. year,, 2000 when tiger won by 15, the british open by 8 in the pga by five and finished off by winning the masters. 1953. , 2015, when the 2, it was third. that is how good it was. charlie: he also said people say when he is 15 feet, it is almost like everybody else being at five feet. he is that good. john: totally. charlie: thank you for coming. stay with us. ♪
charlie: a.o. scott is here, the new york times chief film critic. he has written a book. the los angeles time wrote his book is like watching the hero of a 1940's hero facing down his adversaries. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. great to be here. charlie: why did you write this?
a.o.: for a few reasons. i want to be reflective on what i do. i have written pieces about what i thought criticism is for. why some people are mistaken when they think critics are the enemies of artists were out to spoil fun. it was more immediately because i began to notice a lot of predictions of my immediate extinction. the idea that we have amazon marketing angle -- algorithms, facebook and twitter. everyone is a critic. nobody needs to be professional anymore. i wanted to think about that anyway without prejudice, not just to celebrate the democracy of the internet but not to cry about how the sky is falling and how my job is going to be taken away and how standards are collapsing and the world is going to help. maybe i can explain what
criticism is. why it is a part of our lives. we talk about when we talk about the works of art we are interested in. charlie: you started as a book critic. a.o.: i did. almost 17 years ago. started from an interest in criticism and migrated away from literature into film. charlie: who has informed your sense of criticism? a.o.: there are a lot of writers .ho i grew up reading some criticism, it's impossible avoid the voice of pauline kale. she is a model for how to talk in a direct personal passionate
way about popular culture. she has influenced film critics and people who write about music, television. i was influenced, migrant passion when i was an adolescent was popular music. honk rock and the aftermath. -- punk rock and the aftermath. an enormous was influence. he could take a song, and alban track, and open it up in a way and show how it was connected to all of these other things in the world and american history and modern culture and do it with a powerful, personal voice. he is still a strong role model. i have been on the show talking about him, roger ebert. as arsonifies criticism democratic arts. a person talking to other people . someone who is knowledgeable but not snobbish, who is convinced
of their own taste but willing to listen to other people. whether he was on television or in the sun-times or in his book, he could speak about what he cared about in a way others would care about it. charlie: one criticism about criticism, from people who make films and write books, it is they say a critic suggested what was in their mind which was never there. quote at thea beginning of the book from oscar wilde who says the highest active criticism is to put into a work of art something the artist hadn't put their. -- there. i think that one of the fascinating things to me about all different kinds of works of art is how open they are to interpretation. whether we are professional critics or not, when we see them and appreciate them, whether we
like them or don't, we are filtering through our own personalities, our experiences and emotions. a critic is no different from anyone else. we do it in a way that is more public and trying to be of use to other people. charlie: do you think most artists say yes, that is right, never agreertists with the criticism? a.o.: it is interesting. i sometimes hear from filmmakers. sometimes i get an e-mail or a letter that says thank you. you understood what i was trying to do. they tend to say that when i have positive things to say. i like to think that i understood it just as well when i didn't like it. i think it varies. artists take criticism to heart.
they are either wounded by it or encouraged. some people, some artists ignore it. i once asked joel and ethan: what they thought -- they don't like to interpret anything. and they are great to talk to goodhey say if we get reviews maybe we sell more tickets. charlie: have you had artists saying you are absolutely right. i fail to do that. i knew i was not doing that. it was a struggle for me. it was a painful thing you pointed out but it was true. happenhat does som sometimes. i'm touched when it does. cruel or harsh. not to be punitive. there are some things that are bad and cynical in a way that deserve to be called out and harshly scolded but a lot of the
time most of the time, i proceed from the idea that no one was trying to make a bad movie. someone was trying to do something good. i have heard, i'm not what name names, people have said i think that is right. we didn't quite nail the end of that story. we didn't have it as sharp as we could have. charlie: how much good criticism is good writing? a.o.: a lot of it. maybe all of it. that you need to be knowledgeable, you need to have good judgment that for me, the critics i love to read are not the ones i agree with but the ones whose voices i want to hear. the ones whose company i seek out. charlie: what i want to hear and a critic is a love of the arts that he or she is writing about. a.o.: i think that is the key. it is so interesting to me that critics are often accused of the opposite.
as if we could be motivated by a hatred or hostility. as if anybody could spend hundreds and thousands of hours in a movie theater doing that for the living because they hated movies. that would be a perverse approach to the world. i try to walk in and every critic i know does it with an open mind. an expectation or hope of being .urprised they criticize the movie they wanted me to make, not the movie i made. a.o.: i have felt the a little bit reading reviews of this book. it has turned around a little bit. there have been a couple of reviews that i think that is an interesting account of some other book, the book you assumed i would have written. i think that is a risk that you
take sometimes. i think it is something to try to struggle against. i don't think you can never entirely overcome that risk of imposing your own expectations on the work but you do try. i think that every critic i'm no and respect does try to see the thing for what it is, to figure out what it is trying to do, whether it lived up to its intentions, whether the intentions were worthy. that is where you have to begin, with the sense of what is this? charlie: how often do you write a review of the film and you look and almost everybody else, including people you respect had a different view and you ask yourself what did i miss here? >> that is one of my favorite things about criticism.
it is still my favorite thing about reading other critics. chapter in this book is how to be wrong. one of the things critics do for one another is take positions that can be disagreed with. i love reading writers that i respect saying things, 180 degrees away from where i am. it doesn't make me doubt myself so much as think that moving must be interesting. only an interesting movie could inspire such opposite and strongly held views. anyway when we stop arguing about works of art is when we begin to lose interest in them. when they begin to die a little bit. charlie: here is something you wrote. a primal feeling of alienation or loss in the universe and confusion about our identity. a.o.: that is what art sets out
to do. to explain to ourselves what it is to be human. the puzzle and the mystery, and the sense of loss and alienation. what are we, what are we doing? the representations of the human condition, that we ,ut under the category of art they are what also inspire us to the act of criticism. we have to figure out what those things were. that iswrote a column showing us something about human emotions and human thoughts and feelings. then we have to figure what they meant. what that all means. humanpart of this endless project and the way of making sense of who we are and where we are. this is not a great movie but i loved it? a.o.: i think so.
i try to bring those things into alignment as much as i can. there are movies, a few movies formal or are not on aesthetic grounds perfectly achieved masterpieces. charlie: but something entertaining. it's a notion that somebody does popular culture. it is the definition of doing popular coulter, they do it well. a.o.: and sometimes what it is done well it can rise to the level of art. one of my favorite movies last great movieed, a and a wonderful piece of popular entertainment. 2015 atgood time in furious seven. no one will say it is a masterpiece of cinema but it had such conviction, such audacity and was so generous with its audience. it was saying to the audience,,
let's have a good time. let's drive these cars off the scribe's capers -- scribe -- skyscrapers. a good movie should have some kind of human connection. fantasy or science fiction or superhero movie or comedy. it should have some cord of human authenticity where there is some feeling or situation that i can recognize. charlie: art should somehow speak to you and say something to you that you somehow deep inside feel but have not been .ble to give inspiration to a.o.: it is that recognition. you see a situation. charlie: and you know the pain. a.o.: for the laughter. charlie: for sure. the oscars.
credit, intent on punishing artists. let me put that up with you. -- that is the role that calls the public to play. i would like to say forget about the oscars. that was before the oscars i wrote that. they were a fascinating show for sure this year. i thought what chris rock did in difficult circumstances was pretty fantastic. it was magical. the academy put itself into this situation where they were deservedly being called out for manifesting the narrowness and exclusiveness, and homogenate of hollywood. the lack of inclusion. charlie: the criticism is the
nature of the academy itself. a.o.: i think that is a big problem. the academy does reflect the larger film industry. it is attached to the bigger problem of fewer opportunities for filmmakers and riders and actors of color, and women. the more attention brought to that, the better. also the academy has a problem of having a narrow act to -- idea of what is quality, what is prestige. what are the movies we want to our superior product. they leave out interesting movies that don't fit that narrative. again, this is not a judgment of the movies. i admired quite a few of them. i love spotlight, brooklyn. i liked room.
i love the performances. but, i think they never have room for comedy. they don't have room for movies some of connected with the more youthful and diverse energies within the popular culture. they couldn't see the artistry of creed. it is a boxing movie, a rocky movie. i happen to think it is a remarkable drama. it is up to the standards of all of the nominees last year. .t is ok people like that movie and people embrace that movie. the movie will be all right. but the oscars, if they want to have any kind of claim on relevance or public attention, they need to figure out how to inform what they are doing. is the chief scott
mark: with all due respect to the pope, baby he will read the comments. -- maybe he will read the comments. ♪ good evening, earthlings. i am here in selleck city where donald trump is holding an event. ted cruz is spending the day in arizona. he is holding two events including one at the u.s.-mexico border. this is the first day that the surviving trio of gop candidates are all out campaigning.